Police Stops: Constitutional

[Axias]

RKWright, you have the short, sweet and specific answer.(No fun cutting to the point like that!). It's just a much more interesting question without the Constitution in the picture.. Rights of free men and intellectual stuff like where the point of law deviates from the innate rights of man and the corresponding schism it produces.

Your solution is elegantly legal, and I don't think anyone can refute it in terms of American law. But it can be refuted from the revolutionary and patriots viewpoint. We can state that above any law, the citizenry are the final check and balance. We can reject a supreme court who agree to expediencies at the cost of personal liberty. We can reject a police solution to a social problem.

Of course my rejection is just vocal, but if the situation was something extreme, I'd be obliged to escalate my opposition.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286498691' post='2178442']Its a contract that we've all agreed to, including the parts that say the SC gets to say what is constitutional and what is not.[/quote]Perhaps so if "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is true...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286522819' post='2178511']
Perhaps so if "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is true...
[/quote]

Which it isn't.


If there [i]were[/i] such a mystical, aetherial contract written with invisible ink, binding upon future generations? The State has breached it, and it is already null and void.


But in Realityville, where we live, there is no such contract. And I signed no contract with anyone else. So let's skip the Rousseauian nonsense.

Read Spooner's "[url="http://jim.com/treason.htm"]No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority[/url]."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286569461' post='2178601']
Which it isn't.


If there were such an aetherial contract written with invisible ink, binding upon future generations, the State has breached it, and it is already null and void.


But in Realityville, where we live, there is no such contract. And I signed no contract with anyone else. So let's skip the Rousseauian nonsense.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

If you believe the state has breached it, sue the state. If you don't agree with the contract or how its been interpreted, why don't you revolt or leave?

Its hard to say you haven't ratified the "contract" by your continued presence and participation.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286569768' post='2178603']
If you believe the state has breached it, sue the state. If you don't agree with the contract or how its been interpreted, why don't you revolt or leave?

Its hard to say you haven't ratified the "contract" by your continued presence and participation.
[/quote]

If you believe the Mafia has wronged you, sue the Mafia. You have to use Mafia lawyers and it has to be arbitrated by Mafia judges, and Mafia prosecutors, but that's the way we do it here. Do you see logic in such a statement?

RKWright, there is no contract. I didn't sign any contract. You've predicated an invisible, intangible contract. You need to prove its existence before you do anything else. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. So far, your only "proof" is, "If you don't believe in our aetherial contract, we'll imprison you, and if you resist imprisonment, we'll kill you." And that's not a logical argument.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" in political science simply proposes that if you voluntarily are cooperating with a state and voluntarily living in the territory of that respective state, you are giving your consent to that government and social contract.

Also the theories of consent in political science have been studied and practiced for several hundreds of years... And the idea of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" reached a form recognizable today chiefly by John Locke. Its not mystical or speculative. It's basically saying there is an unspoken consent, because with such a consent nothing directly to the contrary has been done.

Going back to an old splitting dichotomy and expression, "[i]If your not apart of the soultion, your apart of the problem.[/i]"

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286571361' post='2178609']
"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" in political science simply proposes that if you voluntarily are cooperating with a state and voluntarily living in the territory of that respective state, you are giving your consent to that government and social contract.

Also the theories of consent in political science have been studied and practiced for several hundreds of years... And the idea of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" reached a form recognizable today chiefly by John Locke. Its not mystical or speculative. It's basically saying there is an unspoken consent, because nothing directly to the contrary has been done.


Going back to an old splitting dichotomy and expression, "[i]If your not apart of the soultion, your apart of the problem.[/i]"
[/quote]

Precisely what is "the problem?" I think you and I have disparate understandings of what "the problem" is.

I'm aware of the theory of "tacit consent" in relation to the State. It predates Locke, and it's a lie. My being born and raised in a jungle, coupled with an awareness of the tigers and poisonous reptiles that dwell therein, does not oblige me to suffer their depredations.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286570361' post='2178606']
If you believe the Mafia has wronged you, sue the Mafia. You have to use Mafia lawyers and it has to be arbitrated by Mafia judges, and Mafia prosecutors, but that's the way we do it here. Do you see logic in such a statement?

RKWright, there is no contract. I didn't sign any contract. You've predicated an invisible, intangible contract. You need to prove its existence before you do anything else. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. So far, your only "proof" is, "If you don't believe in our aetherial contract, we'll imprison you, and if you resist imprisonment, we'll kill you." And that's not a logical argument.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You ratified the "contract" by taking part in and participating life in the United States. If you want to live here, you agree to our laws. Thats the "contract".

On the Mafia stuff... pluhez.. there are plenty of suit against the government every day. And plenty of lawyers that will take your money to litigate for you. For example... if you have a good case* perhaps I will represent you

*and can pay

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286571520' post='2178610']Precisely what is "the problem?" I think you and I have disparate understandings of what "the problem" is.

I'm aware of the theory of "tacit consent" in relation to the State. It predates Locke, and it's a lie. My being born and raised in a jungle, coupled with an awareness of the tigers and poisonous reptiles that dwell therein, does not oblige me to suffer their depredations. [/quote]If that is your description of "tacit consent", I suspect you don't understand. But I'm curious why you felt the need to reaffirm that it predated John Locke?

If you can voluntarily change and leave that jungle, but you voluntarily choose to live in that jungle, while voluntarily cooperating in that jungle system... You have given some kind of consent to it otherwise you would be doing something to change some circumstance previously mentioned, unless you think it's just complacency.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286572786' post='2178615']
If that is your description of "tacit consent", I suspect you don't understand. But I'm curious why you felt the need to reaffirm that it predated John Locke?

If you can voluntarily change and leave that jungle, but you voluntarily choose to live in that jungle, while voluntarily cooperating in that jungle system... You have given some kind of consent to it otherwise you would be doing something to change some circumstance previously mentioned, unless you think it's just complacency.
[/quote]

I live in an environment made up of relationships I have with other individuals. Not all relationships are voluntary. E.g., rapist and raped, robber and robbed. The environment acts upon me in ways I really am quite incapable of changing. If a Category 4 hurricane were to smash me into a palm tree, I guess we could say I was "participating" in being lifted up and smashed into the tree, and perhaps even "consenting" to the hurricane's act of picking me up and slamming me against a tree, because, clearly, if I didn't give my consent to the hurricane, I would be voting or speaking out against it or something.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286572758' post='2178614']
You ratified the "contract" by taking part in and participating life in the United States. If you want to live here, you agree to our laws. Thats the "contract".
[/quote]

RKWright, again, you've predicated an aetherial, invisible contract signed with invisible ink. I don't think any such contract exists. Now, how can you prove it? What rational argument can you make on behalf of its existence? As I said, threatening non-aggressors with violence does not an argument make.

[quote]
On the Mafia stuff... pluhez.. there are plenty of suit against the government every day. And plenty of lawyers that will take your money to litigate for you. For example... if you have a good case* perhaps I will represent you [img]public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] [/quote]

Wright, you're an advocate of a mystical non-existent document. I wouldn't [i]want[/i] you to plead my case before other irrational men.

~Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

Sternhauser, I was unaware that you were not voluntarily involved in your life...

Maybe you don't consider yourself having a life, you just sort of exist...

But if either case is true, then you could not give "[i]tacit consent[/i]", merely existing is not sufficient.

Apart of why I suspected you don't understand "[i]tacit consent[/i]".

Unless your interpretation of "voluntary" is radically different from what I understand it to be.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286574458' post='2178622']
Sternhauser, I was unaware that you were not voluntarily involved in your life...

Maybe you don't consider yourself having a life, you just sort of exist...[/quote]

Where did you get the idea that I believe I am not voluntarily involved in my life?

[quote]But if either case is true, then you could not give "[i]tacit consent[/i]", merely existing is not sufficient.

Apart of why I suspected you don't understand "[i]tacit consent[/i]".

Unless your interpretation of "voluntary" is radically different from what I understand it to be.
[/quote]

Let's break down the terms. "Tacit." That means "unspoken." It's best not to introduce a third term somewhere in there. Then there's "consent." Either consent is a voluntary act of the will, or it is utterly meaningless.

The fact that others give [i]their [/i]tacit consent to a State that inflicts violence upon non-aggressors does not mean that [i]I [/i]give [i]any [/i]consent, tacit or overt, to such an entity. My voluntary actions are completely distinct from the acts of the State, which are, by nature, aggressive. State actors inflict violence upon me, but I do not give my consent to them, any more than a woman with a gun stuck to her head consents to being raped. I guess she could have moved to a place where rape doesn't exit, couldn't she have? So that means she [i]consented[/i] to what she got because she didn't move to a different neighborhood, right?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286575115' post='2178624']Let's break down the terms. "Tacit." That means "unspoken," and we can even go as far as to say it means "generally held." Then there's "consent." Either consent is a voluntary act of the will, or it is utterly meaningless.

The fact that others give [i]their [/i]tacit consent to a State that inflicts violence upon non-aggressors does not mean that [i]I [/i]give [i]any [/i]consent, tacit or overt, to such an entity. My voluntary actions are completely distinct from the acts of the State, which are, by nature, aggressive. State actors inflict violence upon me, but I do not give my consent to them, any more than a woman with a gun stuck to her head consents to being raped. I guess she could have moved to a place where rape doesn't exit, couldn't she have? So that means she [i]consented[/i] to what she got because she didn't move to a different neighborhood, right? [/quote]The words voluntarily and [s]rape[/s] are not compatible. The moment [s]rape[/s] is voluntarily entered it is no longer [s]rape[/s], its merely consensual sexual intercourse. [s]Rape[/s] by definition is non-consensual. Direct coercion tends to negate voluntary acts, but even a person being coerced can still resist and not consent. I suspect what you are doing is mistaking FORCE for CONSENT.

But considering your using the argument of "[s]rape[/s]", I suspect this argument isn't sincerely presented. So to comfort your afflicted and confused state, I didn't assert that "[i]tacit consent[/i]" was true, did I? But denying what the idea "[i]tacit consent[/i]" represents doesn't make your disagreement or argument better, in fact it would make it worse in my perspective, because it becomes disingenuous and dishonest.

Saying you disagree with "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is cool, not sure why you would, but fine. But to DENY what "[i]tacit consent[/i]" means... It sounds a bit like this in my head:

[b]Person A[/b]: "I am Person A"

[b]Person B[/b]: "No your not, that's a lie!"

[b]Person A[/b]: "But it is still who I claim to be."

[b]Person B[/b]: "No you don't."

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286575929' post='2178628']
The words voluntarily and [s]rape[/s] are not compatible. The moment [s]rape[/s] is voluntarily entered it is no longer [s]rape[/s], its merely consensual sexual intercourse. [s]Rape[/s] by definition is non-consensual. Direct coercion tends to negate voluntary acts, but even a person being coerced can still resist and not consent.[/quote]
Correct. Now, how is my action of merely remaining within a geographical area, [i]despite[/i] the fact that it happens to controlled by a violent monopoly, a display of "unspoken consent:" a validation of the legitimacy of their rule and a silent approbation of the justice of their actions?


[quote]I suspect what you are doing is mistaking FORCE for CONSENT.[/quote]
You suspect rashly. I am not mistaking force for consent. I am saying that my staying in a particular geographical area is absolutely no indication that I give any form of consent to any violent entities that operate therein.


[quote]But considering your using the argument of "[s]rape[/s]", I suspect this argument isn't sincerely presented. So to comfort your afflicted and confused state, I didn't assert that "[i]tacit consent[/i]" was true, did I?[/quote]
You did:
[quote]"If you can voluntarily change and leave that jungle, but you voluntarily choose to live in that jungle, while voluntarily cooperating in that jungle system... You have given some kind of consent to it otherwise you would be doing something to change some circumstance previously mentioned, unless you think it's just complacency."[/quote]

[quote]Saying you disagree with "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is cool, not sure why you would, but fine. But to DENY what "[i]tacit consent[/i]" means.
[/quote]
I don't deny the existence of tacit consent. I deny that your example of "tacit consent" is a true example of tacit consent. A true example of tacit consent would be allowing a child to take three pieces of candy from the bowl on Halloween because you didn't say anything against it. Giving three pieces of candy to a child who has a gun to your head and [i]demands[/i] three pieces of candy is not an example of "tacit consent."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser